[Barry.]

Originally Posted by Aaliyah

Worst movie ever, looks cringey and ****

How can you say it’s the worst movie ever then say it looks cringe. So you haven’t seen it yet I’m guessing.

[Amy Jade]

Im not understanding the limb outrage either.

Cloven fingers and toes are all over folklore for ancient creatures/monsters and the character is meant to be the high witch.

[UserSince2005]

her fingers do look exactly like that guys from last leg. they could have been a bit more outlandish with the them so they didnt look so human.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The whole limb difference controversy is stupid, The Grand High Witch isn't someone with a disability who is monstrous because of it, she's literally just meant to be a monster.

I've not seen the Film tbf, but it does sound like people are getting worked up over nothing to me.

Villains can come in all forms, and to me I'd rather a disabled character that's a villain than a disabled character that's just a token to "represent" the community but the writer has no idea what to do with the character, that's what I'd call bad representation imo.

[Niamh.]

The film was OK, not as good as the first by a mile but it was watchable. Really can't believe it was in anyway controversial though

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The film was OK, not as good as the first by a mile but it was watchable. Really can't believe it was in anyway controversial though

Yeah I wouldn't call it good, it's fine The old one was actually scary (for kids), this was just a silly cartoon.

If they made the Grand High Witch look like an actual monster like the old film, instead of a SnapChat effect, people might not be moaning so much.

[Oliver_W]

and speaking of disability representation, I went to IMDB and it turns out they hired an actual mouse-boy to play Bruno! https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0693241/

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I've not seen the Film tbf, but it does sound like people are getting worked up over nothing to me.

Villains can come in all forms, and to me I'd rather a disabled character that's a villain than a disabled character that's just a token to "represent" the community but the writer has no idea what to do with the character, that's what I'd call bad representation imo.

Ann Hathaway has even apologised , which I don't think was necessary .

It's a fictional tale about monsters I don't understand why people are moaning now , is there going to be an uproar about alopecia next ? as the witches are bald . They seem to pick and choose what to be offended by . Definitely an overreaction.

Plus the original Witches never got any stick . So I'm guessing it's because people just like to complain for the sake of it now .

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Ann Hathaway has even apologised , which I don't think was necessary .

It's a fictional tale about monsters I don't understand why people are moaning now , is there going to be an uproar about alopecia next ? as the witches are bald . They seem to pick and choose what to be offended by . Definitely an overreaction.

Plus the original Witches never got any stick . So I'm guessing it's because people just like to complain for the sake of it now .

To be fair the original Witches didn't depict them as missing fingers.

But they had no toes, so there's that

People seem to have thinner skins now than in the 1990s and 2000s, no-one cared about this crap back then.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

People seem to have thinner skins now than in the 1990s and 2000s, no-one cared about this crap back then.

I think it's more that they didn't have a platform to share it on, to be honest.

Meh, I get people not wanting negative connotations of certain things but a lot of the complaints on this seem to be a bit backwards; suggesting that the characters are considered witches because they happen to have physical differences.

That said, if they wanted to play it safer they should just have stuck with the description as its written. I doubt people would be complaining (as much) if they were originally described in the book as having three fingers.

[user104658]

Or, having seen the pictures, they could have gone with making the hands even MORE like a bird's talons, to make them very clearly non-human.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by BBUK-Fan

No. Why does the witch have to have limb differences to make her more like a monster? It’s unnecessary and upsetting. Children with limb differences will see this and think of themselves of monsters because of this offensive portrayal. It’s unacceptable and how did no one think about what they were doing when making the film.

No. You're grasping at straws to get offended on behalf of other people because you feel like you're obligated to. Laughable.

The witch doesn't have "limb differences", she has three finger claws like a bird of prey (the children being the mice she is preying on). She doesn't have missing fingers, those are her hands.

You're focussing on the fact that Anne Hathaway is a human and is using prosthetics to hide her human hands to invent something that is not there.